Skip to main content
Veterans Claims· 8/5/2005

Scarborough v. Nicholson

Citations

  • 19 Vet. App. 253
  • 2005 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 521
  • 2005 WL 1865283

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that specialization in Supreme Court litigation did not constitute “special factor”
  • noting that, where agency conceded that its position at the administrative level was not substantially justified, fee applicant had “cleared the substantial-justification hurdle” for EAJA award eligibility, obviating need to consider agency’s position in litigation
  • rejecting specialization in Supreme Court litigation as a special factor under the EAJA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Greene, Ivers, Steinberg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

53 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.